A column appeared in the Toronto Star this weekend by columnist Rosie DiManno, who unleashed an astonishing level of venom on a Brampton father and his sense of "entitlement" for asking that his children – who have opted out of sectarian instruction at their local Catholic high school (their right under the Education Act) – be supervised during the school day while the rest of the students attend sectarian observances. Besides that "grievance", the piece was riddled with ignorance, arrogance, and irony – points addressed by OneSchoolSystem.org president Leonard Baak in a letter to the editor (printed here with similar letters on Nov. 2, 2013):

Rosie DiManno’s recent opinion on non-Catholics exercising their right to an exemption from religious studies in publicly funded Catholic schools was breathtaking in its ignorance, arrogance, and irony.

The Education Act states pretty clearly that anyone attending a Catholic secondary school who is qualified to attend a public secondary school – which is everyone including Catholics – can opt out of the religious programs. It is the law in this province – and a whole lot less objectionable than the law that awards one supremely favoured faith with a segregated sectarian school system denied to every other faith – but paid for by all.

Catholic schools do not have higher expectations with respect to academics or conduct. Those are pretty universal system wide. When a Catholic school does outrank a nearby public school on standardized testing, it is frequently because they have lower numbers of special needs students, English language learners, immigrant children, and children whose mother tongue is not English. Test results include such contextual data to allow real apples to apples comparisons. According to the 2001 Census (the last long form Census to have credibility), Catholic Ontarians also suffer lower unemployment and enjoy a higher level of educational attainment than Ontarians at large. Catholic schools typically have a whiter and more socio-economically advantaged population than their public counterparts and the usually slight differences in test results often reflect that.

It is supremely arrogant to suggest that a non-Catholic parent should move his children down the road to a truly public school if he wants them to have a non-sectarian education. A consequence of Ontario’s fractured school system is that hundreds of thousands of children are bused past their nearest publicly funded school every day to attend another one farther away. Many are bused to distant communities. All schools are open to Catholic children, so they need only suffer such inconveniences voluntarily. Non-Catholics, on the other hand, often have no choice. Where they do have a choice – at the high school level where “open access” is supposed to apply – having the right to withdraw from the overtly sectarian components of the program is a small consolation for having to attend a sectarian school in order to be educated in their own community.

It is ironic that a Catholic schools apologist like DiManno would speak of “entitlement, privilege and prerogative” when deriding a non-Catholic parent who only wishes to have his kids receive a good non-sectarian education near their home. There is no greater “entitlement, privilege and prerogative” in Ontario than that granted to Catholic Ontarians exclusively in the form a wasteful and discriminatory sectarian school system, but DiManno would instead demonize a man trying to mitigate the consequences of that privilege on his family. Missing the forest for the trees, she is. Our Charter of Rights effectively prevents the award of real privilege to anyone other than Ontario Catholics, whose publicly funded sectarian schools are exempt from the force and effect of its equality provisions.

What lessons does Ms. DiManno believe are taught by giving segregated school “rights” to the members of the Catholic faith exclusively? Love thy neighbour as thyself? No. It teaches otherwise good Catholic children that some animals are more equal and more entitled than others – and that “love thy neighbour” is a slogan to be used only when you are getting the short end of the stick. That is a lesson she might want to teach her children, but not one I want to teach mine.

Where does the Ontario Conservative Party stand on this blatant mis-use of Public Funds? If most Ontarioans object to this discriminatory and wasteful policy, surely the Conservatives can make political hay out of this. What says Mr Hudak?

Reply

Leonard Baak

11/3/2013 12:55:11 am

Mr. Hudak appears to support the status quo. I once presented to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs on the need for one school system and Hudak, who was a Committee member, left the room for my presentation. Immediately prior to my presentation, he asked a Catholic school board chairman who was presenting: "A fellow presenting after you will be calling for one public school system. What do you think of that?" It seemed he wanted this gentleman to have the opportunity to record his objection in Hansard.

Hudak later told me face to face at a party function "I support choice." It has since become clear that if choice for all faiths is not in the cards, then he is happy with the status quo that gives choice to Catholics alone. His father was apparently quite involved in the extension of public funding to Catholic high schools and was principal of one of the first publicly funded Catholic high schools in the province.

A one school system policy would make political hay for any party that embraces it because a majority of the electorate want to see such a change. The first big three party to embrace such a policy would also leave the others trying to defend an indefensible and unpopular status quo. I believe this could lead them to quickly adopt a one school system policy as well. The result might be that the one school system issue would become a non-issue before an election even got underway.

I'm not holding my breath that "If-not-fund-all-then-fund-Catholic-only" Hudak will be the man to lead the change. He'd more likely be the leader dragged kicking and screaming into the change when another party put his own into an indefensible position. Sorry, but that's my read of the man. It's not flattering.